Tidwell v. Gomez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUBBOCK DIVISION

RICHARD TIDWELL,

Institutional ID No. 01835060,

SID No. 7381198

Plaintiff,

V. No. 5:19-CV-00179-H

TERESA S. GOMEZ,

Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

AND REQUIRING A MOTION ON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a

recommendation (FCR) that this Court enter a scheduling order as to Plaintiff's claims that

Defendant Teresa S. Gomez subjected him to excessive force in violation of his

constitutional rights. (Dkt. No. 33.) No objections were filed. The District Court has

reviewed the FCR for plain error. Finding none, the Court accepts and adopts the findings,

conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge with one

modification — the Court will first enter a schedule for a preliminary determination on

qualified immunity.

In her Answer, Defendant Gomez asserted several affirmative defenses, including the

defense of qualified immunity. (See Dkt. No. 32.) As soon as a defendant invokes an

entitlement to qualified immunity, “the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate the

inapplicability of the defense.” McClendon v. City of Columbia, 305 F.3d 314, 323 (Sth Cir.

2002) (en banc) (per curiam); see also Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 (1991) (noting that

“we repeatedly have stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest

possible stage in litigation”); Harris v. Serpas, 745 F.3d 767, 771 (Sth Cir. 2014) (“Once the

defendant raises the qualified immunity defense, ‘the burden shifts to the plaintiff to rebut

this defense by establishing that the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly

established law.’” (quoting Brumfield v. Hollins, 551 F.3d 322, 326 (Sth Cir. 2008))); Shaw v.

Villanueva, 918 F.3d 414, 416-17 (5th Cir. 2019) (“When a defendant asserts qualified

immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of pleading facts that demonstrate liability and

defeat immunity.” (citations omitted)).

To promote the efficient determination of the qualified-immunity issues, the Court

requests a motion for summary judgment on that limited issue. Accordingly, Defendant

Gomez is ordered to file a motion for summary judgment with supporting evidence on the

issue of qualified immunity no later than May 1, 2021." The summary-judgment motion,

any response, and any reply must comply with the requirements of the Local Civil Rules of

the Northern District of Texas.

All discovery is stayed pending a ruling on the anticipated motion for summary

judgment or further order from the Court. See Wicks v. Miss. State Emp’t Servs., Inc., 41 F.3d

991, 994-95 (5th Cir. 1995); see also Backe v. LeBlanc, 691 F.3d 645, 648 (Sth Cir. 2012); Lion

Boulos v. Wilson, 834 F.2d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1987); Webb v. Livingston, 618 F. App’x 201, 206

(5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). If a claim survives summary judgment on immunity grounds,

then the parties are entitled to all appropriate discovery, even discovery that does not relate

! After the issue of qualified immunity is resolved, an additional summary-judgment motion on any

or all remaining issues may be filed if appropriate. See LR 56.2(b).

to the qualified-immunity defense. See Zantiz v. Seal, 602 F. App’x 154, 159 (Sth Cir. 2015)

(quoting Lion Boulos, 834 F.2d at 507-08).

Where a defendant has asserted a qualified-immunity defense, the Court may, under

certain circumstances, permit limited discovery that is narrowly tailored to uncover facts

that the Court needs to rule on the qualified-immunity defense. See Wicks, 41 F.3d at 994.

On a proper request, the Court may authorize a plaintiff to conduct limited discovery in

order to respond to the qualified-immunity issues raised in the expected motion for

summary judgment. See Backe, 691 F.3d at 648 (“[T]his court has established a careful

procedure under which a district court may defer its qualified immunity ruling if further

factual development is necessary to ascertain the availability of that defense.”). Hinojosa v.

Livingston, 807 F.3d 657, 670 (Sth Cir. 2015) (“[A] district court may elect the defer-and-

discover approach ‘when the defendant’s immunity claim turns at least partially on a factual

question’ that must be answered before a ruling can issue.” (quoting Lion Boulos, 834 F.2d at

507)); of Nance v. Meeks, No. 3:17-cv-1882-L-BN, 2018 WL 5624202, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Aug.

1, 2018) (“[A] court’s qualified immunity inquiry at [the summary judgment] stage requires

that the Court ‘accept the plaintiff's version of the facts (to the extent reflected by proper

summary judgment evidence) as true.’” (quoting Haggerty v. Tex. S. Univ., 391 F.3d 653, 655

(5th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted)), rec. accepted, 2018 WL 5620469 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 30,

2018).

After Defendant files her motion for summary judgment, the Court will set

procedures and deadlines for any possible request for limited discovery related to the

affirmative defense of qualified immunity. Plaintiff may file a response by no later than 30

days from the date shown on the certificate of service attached to the motion for summary

judgment.

Finally, the Court notes that after entry of the FCR, Plaintiff filed a motion for

summary judgment with declaration in support. (Dkt. No.38.) The motion appears to

consist primarily of restatements of Plaintiff's claims and his desired relief, as well as copies

of medical records, handwritten grievances, and drawings of the incident giving rise to

Plaintiffs complaint. The Court finds that the motion for summary judgment is premature.

Thus, it is denied without prejudice to Plaintiffs right to re-urge his motion if the Court

enters further scheduling orders.

So ordered.

Dated _/ chara, / , 2021.

Che. Lo Mr

JAMES WESLEY HENDRIX

ited States District Judge